[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] Quiting mhshow(1) Early Doesn't Set Current Message.

From: Ralph Corderoy
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Quiting mhshow(1) Early Doesn't Set Current Message.
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 22:47:03 +0100

Hi David,

> show(1) doesn't quite do the right thing either.  Quitting before the
> last message of many has a different but equally disturbing effect:
> the current message is set to the last selected message, even though
> it was never shown.

I'd forgotten that, but have been bitten.

> Does anyone disagree that we want this behavior instead, from the
> show(1) man page, for both mhshow and show?
>   The last message shown will become the current message.

No, I think show's current behaviour is correct.  Besides, if it's just
printing them end-to-end on stdout then it can't know how far through
that stream my eyeballs have got in less(1) what with pipe buffering.

If I do `show 42-314' then it's nice, even if I bail, to know `show
next:271' repeatedly does another chunk that doesn't overlap.

> And just to note that the other commands that set the current message
> and can take multiple messages behave differently.  Some set the first
> message of many to the current message, while others set the last.  I
> don't think that we want to change them at this point

Agreed, but the inconsistency smells?  Anyone have a reason why show's
behaviour can't be the desired target long-term?

Cheers, Ralph.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]